Obsidian Wings

Larry Craig

by hilzoy

From Roll Call:

"Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.

Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.

A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding,” and said the office would release a fuller statement later Monday afternoon.

After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?” the report states."

TPM has posted the arrest report, along with a video of Craig endorsing Mitt Romney, in which he praises Romney's "very strong family values. That's something I grew up with and believe in." (The Romney campaign has apparently yanked the video.) Craig has released a statement saying his actions were misconstrued. Based on the description in Roll Call (citing the police report), I'm not sure exactly what Craig did that was illegal, as opposed to merely peculiar. However, he did plead guilty. Moreover, if it's all a misunderstanding, it's a misunderstanding that Craig seems to attract a lot. Here's a YouTube video from 1982 in which Craig denies being part of a House page sex scandal. Here, last October, is Michael Rogers of BlogActive alleging that he has met with several men who claim to have had sex with Craig. And here's some interesting commentary out of Idaho on the last round of allegations.

I have a certain sympathy for closeted gay men and lesbians. I think that being so deeply ashamed of a part of yourself that's so fundamental, and that you can do nothing to change, must be close to unbearable; and the knowledge that coming clean would involve not only admitting that you're gay, but also that you have lied for years to people you care about, and who trust you, would only make it that much worse. But my sympathy vanishes when it comes to people who support amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, as Craig did. There are limits to what you get to do to protect your own secrets, and being willing to permanently destroy gay men and lesbians' chances to marry the people they love, and with whom they have found happiness, is way, way outside them.

(For the record, I don't have much sympathy for straight people who support this idiotic and mean-spirited amendment either.)

Craig seems to have made a habit of voting against laws that would secure the rights of gay men and lesbians. In addition to supporting the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, he voted against a bill that would have banned job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, against expanding the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation, and was rated zero by the Human Rights Campaign in each of the last three Congresses (1, 2, 3; all pdf.) I truly can't imagine what it would be like -- how little self-respect a person would have to have -- to amass that sort of voting record while cruising for gay sex in airport restrooms.

And besides, if I had any sympathy for Larry Craig, the fact that he "handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?”" would have destroyed it. The laws are meant to apply to everyone, Senators included. No one gets to violate laws he himself supports and then use the fact that he has been elected to high office to get himself off the hook. Being elected Senator means being given a position of trust and responsibility that you should work every day to be worthy of, not a Get Out Of Jail Free card.

Why Conservatives Opposed Gonzales

by publius

Ah, Fredo, we hardly knew ye. Actually, we did knew ye, we just didn’t much like ye. I don’t have much to add -- the man should never have been nominated in the first place, and will probably rank as one of the weakest AGs in American history.

On a brighter note, it’s tempting to take solace in the fact that Gonzales faced bipartisan criticism. It’s also tempting to believe that Gonzales’s resignation is evidence that -- even in the post-Rove era -- there are still limits to political loyalty in the face of egregious wrongs. You should, however, resist these temptations.

It’s true that Republicans were as critical of Gonzales as Democrats were. But (Specter aside) the criticism had little to do with his actual performance. It had to do with a Supreme Court nomination. His bad performance was a pretext for criticism, not a cause.

If you’ll remember, the conservative base was literally terrified that Bush would nominate his buddy to the Supreme Court. And they spilled a lot of vitriolic ink demanding that Bush nominate someone else. I would say the overwhelming majority of this opposition was substantive -- conservatives feared he was a closet social liberal (and intellectually weak). But he was also, of course, Latino -- so I doubt the Tancredo/[one name removed]/Malkin wing would look kindly on a Justice Gonzales.

Regardless of their motivation (and again, I believe the overwhelming majority was substantive), most conservative Republicans were more than happy to let Gonzales take his licks. Given the times, the relative silence that met Democratic criticism was deafening. Take the National Review for instance. They explicitly called for him to resign. Scooter Libby, however, deserved a pardon even though his perjury was significantly more obvious and consequential. NRO of course went through the motions of citing his incompetence. But the real reason for their opposition was Supreme Court politics. They – like many other conservatives – wanted him politically dead. And now he is. And not a moment too soon.

So fear not, nation. Bipartisan reasonableness is still not alive and not well.

[UPDATE: I struck the line above because it was distracting from my main point, which that conservatives didn't trust his ideology and feared his promotion. I think it's undeniable that race and racism play important roles in the immigration debate. But that doesn't necessarily cross-over to opposition to Gonzales's appointment. So I removed that bit and shouldn't have posted it. Point - commenters.]

At Last!

by hilzoy

From the NYT:

"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.

Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the resignation had not yet been made public."

I'm actually somewhat surprised by this: the last time the man Spencer Ackerman calls "the Justice Department's master of disaster" testified before Congress, I thought his performance was so appalling, and in such easily preventable ways, that the only possible explanation was that he knew that he would never be asked to leave no matter what. But hey: from this administration, I take good news where I can get it.

The "senior administration official" who is the NYT's source blames Gonzales' departure on his critics: "“The unfair treatment that he’s been on the receiving end of has been a distraction for the department,” the official said." Naturally. It's the treatment he has received, not what he did to deserve it, that's the problem.

Moreover, the NYT reports that Gonzales lied to his own spokesman about his plans:

"As recently as Sunday afternoon, Mr. Gonzales was denying through his press spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, that he intended to leave.

Mr. Roehrkasse said Sunday afternoon that he had telephoned Mr. Gonzales about the reports circulating in Washington that a resignation was imminent, “and he said it wasn’t true, so I don’t know what more I can say.”"

If you think about it, that's a pretty fitting coda to Gonzales' time in office. Admittedly, it doesn't hit all the low notes -- there's no torture, for instance, and no warrantless wiretapping -- but it epitomizes the pointless, transparent lies well enough. But Andrew Cohen provides the best summary of it all:

"There are times in the life of a "beat journalist"--my "beat" being the law--when the knowledge and experience you've gathered over the years--in my case, 10 years-- tells you that something is so horribly off-kilter with a particular person, institution, or practice that it cries out for a different kind of coverage, a different level of analysis; a different depth of commentary. And when that time comes, it seems to me, the commentator has a responsibility to explain forcefully and with passion why what is occurring is so different from and so much worse than what has occurred before.

And so it was for me with Gonzales. His tenure as Attorney General, on matters of both substance and procedure, was so atrocious and beneath contempt to the men and women who care deeply about the Justice Department that I felt it necessary to stridently defend them at his expense. His lack of independence from the White House on critical matters of constitutional law--say, the legality of the domestic surveillance program, for example--was so glaring and destructive that I felt it needed to be highlighted for you so that you might be roused from your slumber into outrage. His utter lack of leadership at the Department--not knowing which federal prosecutors were to be fired, he says--was so unacceptable that I felt the typical "he-said/she said" analysis would not have been able to do credit to the incompetence at work in the corridors of power.

I took no joy in going after the Attorney General the way that I did and I take absolutely no satisfaction now that he is gone. That's because there are no winners in this story. There are only losers. Because the damage he caused to the Justice Department, and to the rule of law, and to the Constitution itself is so vast that it will take years to mend. And also because I cannot help but think about how different things might be today if only President George W. Bush had selected a qualified attorney general in 2005 (there were and are plenty of Republican candidates) instead of selecting his buddy, the hack crony, whose only qualification for the job was that he would willingly do the White House's bidding."

Alberto Gonzales helped to destroy the good name of our country. He wrote the legal opinions that allowed the administration to disregard laws it did not wish to follow, and in so doing did real damage to the structure of our government and to the separation of powers. He took a department that was, by all accounts, superb, and trashed it. And by being so transparently interested only in advancing the interests of George Bush at the expense of the laws he swore to uphold, the Constitution, and the national interest, he deepened cynicism about government at a time when we badly needed leaders worthy of our trust and our confidence.

Goodbye and good riddance.

Over Lunch

by hilzoy

I thought I knew most of the major blunders of the Bush administration's foray into Iraq. But Roger Cohen has come up with a new one. He's talking about Zalmay Khalilzad:

"Khalilzad’s anguish centers on May 6, 2003. That’s the day he expected Bush to announce his return to Iraq to convene a grand assembly — something like an Afghan loya jirga — that would fast-forward a provisional Iraqi government.

Instead, the appointment of L. Paul Bremer III to head a Coalition Provisional Authority was announced. Khalilzad, incredulous, went elsewhere. In the place of an Afghan-American Muslim on a mission to empower Iraqis, we got the former ambassador to the Netherlands for a one-year proconsul gig.

“We had cleared both announcements, with Bremer to run things and me to convene the loya jirga, both as presidential envoys,” Khalilzad told me. “We were just playing with a few final words. Then the game plan suddenly changed: we would run the country ourselves.”

Alluding to former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his successor, Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, Khalilzad continued: “Powell and Condi were incredulous. Powell called me and asked: ‘What happened?’ And I said, ‘You’re secretary of state and you’re asking me what happened!’ ”

Powell confirmed his astonishment. “The plan was for Zal to go back,” he said. “He was the one guy who knew this place better than anyone. I thought this was part of the deal with Bremer. But with no discussion, no debate, things changed. I was stunned.”

The volte-face came at a Bush- Bremer lunch that day where Bremer made a unity of command argument to the Decider. “I put it very directly to the president: you can’t have two presidential envoys running around Iraq,” Bremer told me. (...)

The insurgency that took hold after Bremer’s arrival had a clear target: the guy in Timberlands. Given the extent of its post-cold-war power, the United States must wield it with subtlety. This was the sledgehammer approach.

And chosen over lunch. “Unfortunately, yes, the way that decision was taken was typical,” Powell said. “Done! No full deliberations. And you suddenly discover, gee, maybe that wasn’t so great, we should have thought about it a little longer.”"

I suppose it's easier to conclude that it was a mistake to place Bremer in charge, rather than creating an interim Iraqi government immediately, now that we've seen the results: a disengaged proconsul with no real knowledge of the country issuing decrees detached from reality while twenty-something Heritage Foundation wannabes run around trying to convince Iraqis "that Iraq should not enshrine judicial review in its constitution because it might lead to the legalization of abortion." Although, frankly, it would have been pretty clear back in 2003: in the Middle East, of all places, having Iraqis in charge would have made a huge difference.

But what was obviously, unequivocally, plainly a mistake was to make a decision of that magnitude over lunch, without any serious discussion. That's just insane.

Bush's Speech: The Contest

by hilzoy

Remember a few days ago when I wrote this about Bush's recent speech, the one in which he invoked Alden Pyle?

"For Bush to compare opponents of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq to Alden Pyle is like King Leopold of Belgium countering criticism of his genocidal policies in the Congo, which resulted in the deaths of millions, by comparing his critics to Captain Kurtz from Heart of Darkness; or like a pedophile defending himself by comparing his critics to Humbert Humbert. It's downright surreal."

Remember all the fun in the comments, when someone who wishes to be referred to as "a commenter" came up with some particularly creative suggestions? (Bush invoking Alden Pyle is "like placing Anna Karenina in charge of AMTRAK privatization because the government is to blame for not removing severed heads from the tracks in a timely and cost-effective manner," or "like exterminator Tom Delay naming Gregor Samsa as his press spokesman.")

Well, I've asked the readers over at Andrew Sullivan's blog whether they can come up with even funnier analogies, and since Andrew doesn't have comments, I've asked them to come here. For you, however, this can also serve as an open thread.

The Obama Doctrine

Oh dear: it's only my second day as a guest-blogger at Andrew Sullivan's place, and I'm already getting into a disagreement. My co-guest-blogger Jamie links to an article he wrote in the Providence Journal about something he calls the Obama Doctrine. From his article:

"Judging from his statements thus far, it appears that Illinois Democratic senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama — though many steps away from becoming leader of the Free World — has presciently formulated his own doctrine: The United States will remain impassive in the face of genocide."

This would be strange if it were true -- after all, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors is Samantha Power, a human rights activist and scholar best known for her book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Luckily, however, it's not. I'll try to explain why, and provide evidence, below the fold.

Miles Deep, Inches Wide

by G'Kar

I just wanted to express a quick note regarding my location (occupied Narn) and how it affects my assessment of the situation on the ground there. While I see a lot here, I hardly see everything even in my relatively small slice of the pie. Therefore, while I can provide some useful on-site information regarding the situation, I am not privy to everything that is occurring and my vantage point may even make it more difficult for me to make assessments regarding the big picture, because I am so involved in questions down in the weeds. Therefore, while I will offer what information I can, I will try to separate facts from opinion by noting when I am relating something I have familiarity with as opposed to an assessment I have arrived at on my own.

I want to point this out because I do not want to want to take more authority to myself than is justified. If I'm seeing something on the ground, I have no hesitation in pointing out what I know. But that does not mean that I think that my opinions about what should be done should confer any special weight.

And to ensure that this post has some real purpose: open thread.

Think First, Speak Second

by publius

I know that O’Hanlon is the wanker du jour, but let’s not ignore this op-ed by relatively-liberal Democrat Brian Baird. Basic story -- Baird voted against the war, but recent events persuaded him to speak out for more time. As a result, the Washington Post gets to write lines like this: “[T]he administration indicated their belief that the political debate in Washington has moved in the administration's favor this month, pointing in particular to a number of Democrats who have spoken positively of some security improvements in Iraq.”

I have a veritable treasure chest of “wanker”-derived adjectives, but I’m not going to use them. Baird seems like a good guy, and frankly, I suspect many of his ideological fellow travelers might be having similar thoughts -- especially those who don’t read blogs. So rather than attacking him, I want to explain in the most substantive, non-snarky way I can the problem with Baird’s position (which includes his speaking out publicly).

1 – Understand that Bush will never leave. It’s clear that the administration will keep the maximum number of troops in Iraq until they are forced to do otherwise. As Josh Marshallsomeone I read explained [I think Josh Marshall, but I couldn't find the link], the administration's incentives are now distinct from the nation’s incentives. They are playing out the clock in hopes that something -- anything -- will turn their way before they leave. The good faith supporters of this strategy cling to the hope that something will change. The bad faith supporters (Kristol) see the writing on the wall and want to buy time to push the eventual withdrawal to a Democratic administration that can be blamed for “losing.” Both positions, however, are irresponsible, even if for different reasons.

2 – The debate is not stay or leave, but stay or start leaving. The political (and military) reality is that it’s not remotely possible to withdraw rapidly. Baird’s op-ed is doing a bit of strawman attacking. The most that could happen -- and only then with collapsed GOP support -- is that we can begin the process. That’s what the upcoming debate is about -- whether or not Congress can muster the numbers to force the beginning of a withdrawal. Bush, of course, will not budge unless forced.

3 – The only way to force Bush to start leaving is through political pressure to Congress. Democrats simply don’t have the numbers to force anything on this President. GOP support has to collapse. This will only happen if the GOP feels political heat on Iraq.

4 – There is a brief window of time to force Bush’s hand. Fall 2007 was gearing up to be the administration’s most vulnerable window. It’s not just the timing of the Petraeus report, but the very nature of the appropriations process that makes this a unique, if fleeting, opportunity. It’s pretty much now or never. If Bush can survive the next month or two, he’s home free and can dump our (admittedly humiliating) withdrawal off to the next President.

5 – Bush needs to buy time. All Bush needs to do is buy some time, primarily with congressional GOP members. He’s just got to squeak through. Accordingly, the plan is to seize on anything that can buy that time. What people like O’Hanlon and Baird don’t (but should) realize is that they’re playing squarely into the administration’s hand by providing Congressional Republicans cover. Their op-eds let Republican legislators go on TV (or go to a state fair back home) and say, “Even Democrats are saying we need more time.” It’s difficult to overstate the political consequences of Baird and O’Hanlon’s actions. At the very least, they’re creating doubt within the minds of the public (often busy people who don’t have time to read up on Brookings’ comings-and-goings) by generating unfavorable talk show debate agendas. And, even worse, they’re releasing steam from the political pressure cooker -- the one source of pressure that could actually lead to change.

Ok, fine, you say. But what if Baird and O’Hanlon really mean it? Are you asking them to be blind ideologues who should ignore facts and their deeply-held beliefs? It’s a fair question. After all, if it’s truly a bad idea to withdraw even one troop, then Baird and O’Hanlon are doing the right thing. Apparently, Baird and O’Hanlon really believe that we should keep them there for the indefinite future. So again, if that’s what they truly believe, what’s wrong with them saying so?

Just Wondering ...

by hilzoy

For some unfathomable reason, the Wall Street Journal has run columns by Ted Nugent on several occasions. Why they would want to give the author of songs like "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang*" a platform to complain about hippies and their "cowardly, irresponsible lifestyle of random sex" is a mystery. But then, there's a lot about the Journal's opinion page that I don't quite understand.

I'll be interested to see whether they continue to publish him after his rant at a concert a few days ago. He was walking up and down the stage holding two machine guns, and he said:

"I was in Chicago last week, I said, "Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these, you punk!" Obama, he’s a piece of sh*t and I told him to suck on my machine gun! Let’s hear it for them. I was in New York and I said, "Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch. And since I'm in California, how about Barbara Boxer? She might want to suck on my machine gun! Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these, you worthless whore!""

Here's the YouTube video (not safe for work; not safe for anyone who minds gratuitous hatred offered to wild applause):

It's not as though the Journal had no way of knowing about Nugent's hatefulness before now: his last column on their opinion page ran last July, over a year after he said, about Iraq: "Our failure has been not to Nagasaki them." But perhaps telling four sitting Senators, two of whom are running for President, to suck on his machine guns will transcend even their limits.

Come on, Wall Street Journal opinion page: surprise me.

* Song title: H/t Mark Kleiman.

Brzezinski Endorses Obama

by hilzoy

Over the past few years, there have been a few people who have, in my opinion, been unusually and consistently insightful on foreign policy generally, and Iraq in particular. Wes Clark is one, and Zbignew Brzezinski is another. That's why I find it significant that Brzezinski has come out for Obama:

"MR. HUNT: Let’s go to the current race for president. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as you know, have had several recent dustups over issues like whether the U.S. should act unilaterally if there were proven intelligence of al Qaeda in Pakistan, whether nuclear weapons should be taken off the table, and that thing. What’s your take on these arguments over foreign policy between these two leading candidates?

MR. BRZEZINSKI: I think Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand. He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world. He recognizes that the challenges, a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world.

The senator from New York talks in very conventional terms and I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago. I think there is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs and Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America’s relationship with the world.

MR. HUNT: And how about the other argument that whether you – the issue of talking to bad guys, the Iranians, North Koreans, and Hugo Chavez, do you believe that direct talks with unsavory characters rewards bad behavior or is just simply realpolitik?

MR. BRZEZINKSI: I can’t understand people who claim that that is the case because what it in effect means that you only talk to people who agree with you. We negotiated with the Soviets throughout the years of the Cold War when there was always the possibility of a nuclear war with them. We negotiated with the Chinese. More recently, we have negotiated with the North Koreans. So what’s the hang-up about negotiating with the Syrians or with the Iranians and so forth?

What Condi Rice says on this subject, mainly that we can’t negotiate with them because they don’t agree with us, is sheer nonsense. It’s really the reputation, the abandonment of intelligent diplomacy.

MR. HUNT: Dr. Brzezinksi, let me ask you a final question. You’ve made quite clear that you prefer Barack Obama in 2008. Are you talking to him about foreign policy right now, does he consult with you?

MR. BRZEZINSKI: Oh, I don’t think I would call myself a person that he consults with. I have known him, I’ve talked to him, but he talks to a lot of people and I’m sure that a lot of people are closer to him than I am. But I do feel fundamentally very deeply that we have gotten ourselves into a jam and that if America is to prosper and if our leadership is to be respected and trusted again, we really need a dramatic new departure. And I sort of sense that Senator Obama has that grasp, that fundamental understanding.

MR. HUNT: And therefore is ready, despite a lack of experience, to be president of the United States?

MR. BRZEZINSKI: Well, what kind of experience that was really relevant did Governor Clinton had before he became president? Being a former First Lady doesn’t prepare you to be president. President Truman didn’t have much experience before he came to office. Neither did John Kennedy. It’s basically a fundamental grasp of what is the nature of our era that is essential here, that is at stake"

The "Obama doesn't have enough experience" argument has always seemed to me to be somewhere between bizarre and amusing. I care a lot about foreign policy, as you might have gathered, and one of the main reasons why I support Obama is that of all the major candidates for President, he seems to me to have by far the best judgment on foreign policy. Part of this is the fact that before the war, when no one knew how it would turn out, he was the only one of the major Democratic candidates to oppose it, and to do so for reasons that now look prophetic. (Check out the YouTube video I posted here.) The fact that Clinton and Edwards voted for the Iraq War Resolution is a huge strike against them, in my book, and one that it would take a lot to get over. Moreover, Obama has always had an eye for very important but underappreciated issues like nuclear nonproliferation: issues that (I'd bet large sums) will be very important in coming decades, and that it takes good judgment to pick out and make one's own.

Besides that, however, I find both Edwards and Clinton dissatisfying on foreign policy, for different reasons. In Edwards' case, I honestly can't get a clear fix on who he is or what he believes, where foreign policy is concerned. His present foreign policy is reasonably coherent, but I'm not clear how the person who holds his present views racked up the rather different record that John Edwards had in the Senate. I find Hillary Clinton's statements on foreign policy troubling, for reasons Steve Clemons states so clearly that I'll just quote him:

"The Hillary we see today -- running hard right (if that is what one can call Bush's foreign policy) on a number of national security issues -- may not be the same Hillary we see in the Oval office. She may be ready to launch a new effort that helps reorder America's place in the world. Privately, I think she wants to do that. I have had at least one serious conversation with her -- and some occasional side comment moments with her -- that indicate to me that she really wants to push a 21st century foreign policy, not one sculpted in the last century.

That said, thus far in her campaign, she is demonstrating a disturbing trend towards incrementalism and continuity of Bush administration policies that she should cease.

This is a "discontinuous moment" in American history in which it's highly dangerous to American interests to plot tomorrow's course by what one did yesterday. There are no easy patterns or templates for the time we are in. America may be slipping from being a globally recognized, earth-sprawling hegemon to something that looks like just another great power -- well, perhaps not just any great power, a big one with great assets -- but that slippage has real costs."

At a moment like this, you really need someone with very good judgment. For all I know, there may be a secret Hillary Clinton that has good judgment. But that Clinton is a secret, hidden beneath a lot of extremely conventional statements and positions that don't show much judgment at all. If those statements (most recently on Cuba) reflect Clinton's real views, I don't much care for them. I suppose I might try banking on a secret Clinton, but I see no reason to take her existence on faith. Moreover, if Clinton is, as Clemons suggests, hiding her real interests for electoral reasons, that is itself a big problem: while I recognize that no candidate will ever tell us every single thing that s/he thinks about everything, I also think that actively concealing one's real views to get votes is antidemocratic and wrong, and should not be rewarded if at all possible.

Luckily, I don't see that we need to take that gamble. And I'm pleased that one of the foreign policy analysts I think most highly of agrees.